DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Perlegen strikes back on privacy

Posted on March 28, 2008October 24, 2024 by Dissent

Healthcare IT News has this story:

Last week, patient privacy advocate Deborah Peel, MD, wrote a letter to Healthcare IT News attacking Perlegen Sciences’ plans to work with an EMR vendor to use patient data for genetics research. In a new letter, Perlegen strikes back at Peel.

To the editor, Healthcare IT News:

We are writing to let you know of the substantial elements of misinformation and misinterpretation that were included in a note you’ve published on 3/21/08, titled “Patient privacy rights advocate attacks plans to mine medical records.”

Perlegen shares with Dr. Peel, the author of the note, the highest regard for maintaining patient privacy. We are actively working to protect that privacy in the context of realizing the substantial clinical benefits we all might expect from the advent of more personalized medicine.

Making personalized medicine a reality relies on the discovery and validation of genetic markers to help predict how individual patients might respond to specific medical treatments. Technology for genetic analysis is no longer the bottleneck, thanks to enormous advances in SNP genotyping and next-generation re-sequencing tools. Rather, it is the lack of clinically appropriate, appropriately consented DNA sample sets that has effectively stymied this effort. Our collaboration for de-identified EMR access is designed to solve this bottleneck, in a way that is absolutely consistent with patient privacy and each individual’s right to self-determination.

To reiterate the point we made in our press release – Perlegen will never have access to the specific identity of any patient, nor will any patient’s DNA ever be collected, much less used, without their prior, written and fully-informed consent. That is the law, and Perlegen is firmly committed to following it in both letter and in spirit.

In fact, we will only have access to de-identified data fields, from which we can sort those case records covering patients from whom we believe a DNA sample might be useful in understanding their variable response to treatments they’ve already received. We then work through our EMR provider, who in turn works with both the medical facilities and physicians that treat those patients.

Before those institutions re-identify any patient, the treating hospital or clinic must receive IRB approval for the study. Only at that point may patients be contacted and informed that preliminary review indicates they might be suitable for the study, and asked if they then consent to further review of their records by their physician.

Read Perlegen’s complete letter on Healthcare IT News

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Governor Rendell Signs Executive Order Implementing Information Technology Initiative From Prescription for Pennsylvania
NY to Develop Unified Medical Records →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • McLaren provides written notice to 743,131 patients after ransomware attack in July 2024
  • A state forensics lab was leaking its files. Getting it locked down involved a number of people.
  • CoinMarketCap Hacked, Scrambles to Remove Malicious Wallet Verification Popup
  • Montana Attorney General launches investigation into Lee Enterprises data breach
  • AT&T gets preliminary approval for $177 million data breach settlement
  • Aflac notifies SEC of breach suspected to be work of Scattered Spider
  • Former JBLM soldier pleads guilty to attempting to share military secrets with China
  • No, the 16 billion credentials leak is not a new data breach — a wake-up call about fake news (Updated)
  • Tonga’s health system hit by cyberattack (1)
  • Russia Expert Falls Prey to Elite Hackers Disguised as US Officials

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The Markup caught 4 more states sharing personal health data with Big Tech
  • Privacy in the Big Sky State: Montana’s Consumer Privacy Law Gets Amended
  • UK Passes Data Use and Access Regulation Bill
  • Officials defend Liberal bill that would force hospitals, banks, hotels to hand over data
  • US Judge Invalidates Biden Rule Protecting Privacy for Abortions
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.